Recent research has confirmed what some have long
suspected: the percentage of Americans who are truly vegetarian has not
changed significantly in the past 30 years.(1) And the percentages are
unlikely to change very much unless those who believe that the
deprivation and suffering caused by human carnivorism is intolerable,
learn something from those who came to the conclusion that slavery was
intolerable. As long as people did not want to appear "judgmental" in
regard to those who upheld slavery, there was no chance of abolition.

As slavery became more widespread and its atrocities
multiplied, growing numbers of people became disturbed by its abuses and
distanced themselves from participation in it. But they could not
distance themselves from the people with whom they worked, worshipped,
and lived. So in its earliest stages the issue of slavery was treated as
one of personal choice. This allowed people to live comfortably and
without dissent among neighbors and family who supported the status quo.
It also allowed them to be viewed as Good Christians who subscribed to
the biblical directive "judge not, lest ye be judged." This was a
position as politically correct and self-serving in its own day as is
the espousal of ethical relativism and value-free judgments in our own
time. It was also a position that ignored another passage of scripture
which directed the believer to "judge with a righteous judgment."

But a growing number of people began to understand that
because the abuses of slavery were upheld by custom, law, and religion,
the buying and selling of other human beings reflected a societal
standard as well as an individual choice. And they understood that as
members of a society which validated and perpetuated its cruelties, they
shared the moral responsibility for its offenses. Only when this
happened did abolition become a possibility.

And it is only when those who understand that killing
other beings in order to satisfy an appetite for their flesh is much
more than a personal choice, that human carnivorism will become an
anomaly. Only when the cruelty and immorality of breeding animals for
the slaughterhouse is recognized as an evil sanctioned by society and
upheld by its laws, will vegetarianism reach the next stage of its
evolution in Western civilization.

In Western civilization? Yes. We can set an example for
others but our own culture, with its values and traditions, is the only
one we can hope to change. People of other cultures will have to find
the basis for change within their own belief systems. Should this
discourage us from working for the abolition of human carnivorism? Of
course not. Although slavery was ended in England almost 200 years ago
by legislation and in the United States by civil war, there are still,
literally, tens of thousands of people who are being sold into slavery
in our own day. And although other countries and other cultures continue
to traffic in the buying and selling of human beings, that does not stop
us from continuing to outlaw it in our own country.

For those who are aware of the ways in which the buying
and selling, the killing and the consumption of animal beings permeates
every aspect of our society, the odds against its abolition can seem
overwhelming. And were it not for the example of the end of slavery in
Western culture, an end to human carnivorism would seem a Utopian dream.
But we do have the example of slavery to show us that no matter how deep
its roots, nor how great its antiquity, a spiritually evolving human
race is able to overcome its failings.

Because slavery and carnivorism can be traced back to
the beginning of historical times, both have been accepted as enduring
components of human society. Millennia of women and men were carefully
taught to rationalize or ignore the cruelties and deprivations endured
by enslaved human beings and to claim divine sanction for brutalities
that were devised by men. And just as biblical support was claimed for
slavery, the Bible has also been used to validate the eating of other
creatures, although the scripture clearly states that men and women were
created to be herbivorous.(2)

In times past, people were content to claim that God
supported their carnivorism. But in an increasingly secularized society,
various pseudo-scientific explanations have been developed to account
for the brutality that demands a diet of dead animals for its
sustenance. Scientism--or junk-science--has manufactured various
theories to explain the continuing brutality that insists on killing and
eating other creatures.

For the secularist, the claim that God said it's all
right to eat other creatures has no creditability. So anthropology and
physiology have provided rationalizations to fill the void left by those
who believe that God-is-dead or never was. These alternative excuses
allow contemporary humans to blame pre-historic ancestors for their
modern-day food choices. Anthropologists offer the theory of
enculturation and physiologists vaguely speak of "adaptation" and assure
you that it is your genes that make you want to kill and eat other
creatures.

Among family and friends, most vegetarians have been
subjected to these ongoing religious and secular arguments, offered as
proof that carnivorism is okay/normal. Of course, the adversarial answer
to that position is that it's not okay/normal to eat your fellow
creatures. Ultimately, these arguments lead either to a rift in
relationships or an agreement not to discuss the subject again. Every
vegetarian knows how painful either decision is and no suggestions will
be offered here, about the way it should be resolved.

However, at the level of infrequent encounters with
neighborhood, church or social groups, there are guidelines that should
be observed. When those who refuse to eat the chicken kiev at the annual
luncheon are challenged about their refusal, they have automatically
become spokesperson against animal suffering. And when asked "why" they
don't partake, the answer is usually a variation on the theme of a
nonviolent diet. But if the dialogue continues, and they are asked if
they think it's wrong to eat meat, many will begin to equivocate. And
generally speaking, it is those who consider themselves well-educated
and intellectually aware, who do this.

Above all other considerations, they do not want to be
thought of as ignorant and judgmental. Value-free is the way to be if
you aspire to be considered a highly developed, rational being by those
who have decided the criteria for that designation. For some people,
this is even more important than the fate of the animals for whom they
may truly be concerned.

The mind-set of this kind of person prevails even at the
media level. Unfortunately, this writer has been privy to what went on
at a meeting between a journalist and the spokesman for a vegetarian
group. When asked whether or not eating meat was wrong the spokesman,
who is a medical professional, said "no," he couldn't make such a
statement. It might be wrong for him, personally, but he certainly would
not make that judgement for others. Having established himself as an
intelligent, value-free observer of the human scene, he went on to
volunteer the information that we must also consider the fact that there
are people who struggle with a physical or psychological addiction to
eating flesh. Of course, this value-free standard also absolves a
Hannibal Lector of responsibility for his food choices.

In order for vegetarianism to become a societal
standard, those who refuse to eat other creatures need to resist the
intellectual, religious and social pressures that try to make it simply
a matter of individual choice. Although carnivorism has overwhelming
majority approval at this time, that does not make it a moral or ethical
choice. And in a society in which optimum nourishment can easily be had
without the slaughter or cruel confinement of other creatures, those who
understand the brutality of human carnivorism have an obligation to
speak their truth when they are asked "Do you think meat-eating is
wrong?"
------------------------------------
(1) Donna Maurer, Ph.d, "Vegetarianism: Movement or Moment. "For more
information: www.veganoutreach.org

** Fair Use Notice**
This document may contain copyrighted material, use of which has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owners. I believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your
own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.